This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

ADJ-00005161

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00005161

Complaint for Resolution:

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00007235-001

28/09/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/03/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Attendance at Hearing:

By

Complainant

Respondent

Parties

(A Pizza Chef)

(A Pizza restaurant).

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant worked for the respondent for approximately nine and a half months, commencing in July 2015.

In December the respondent ceased making wages payments direct to his bank account and from then on there were delays in making the payments. By March, when the complainant was due to go on holidays he was owed five weeks wages.

He was promised this but a cheque payment lodged to his account in the amount of €850 ‘bounced’; something he only learned in transit to his holiday destination.

He told the respondent that he would not return to work until all outstanding wages were paid. Eventually, the outstanding wages were paid but he was still owed money for public holidays.

He received an email from the respondent on April 13th 2016 enclosing a wage slip confirming an outstanding amount due to the complainant of €614.66 and advising him that it ‘will be available for collection in the store on Sunday 17th of April’. The email and payslip were exhibited in evidence.

However, when the complainant called the business was closed and his subsequent attempts to contact the respondent were unsuccessful. He received no payment as promised

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent did not attend the hearing, but as it subsequently emerged through no fault of his own. He was in attendance at the hearing venue (a hotel) but had been given wrong instructions about the precise room in which the hearing was to take place, There was another WRC case taking place in the same hotel at the time.

While the complainant had departed by the time this came to light he confirmed to the Adjudicator that the outstanding wages were due to the complainant but that he was now unemployed himself and not in any position to discharge them

Findings and Conclusions

The respondent deserves credit for travelling the distance to the hearing venue and respecting the processes of the WRC.

It was unfortunate that the error occurred regarding the hearing. Had he disputed any aspect of the complaint I would have arranged for a fresh hearing.

However, in view of the evidence presented by the complainant, the fact that the complaint was not disputed by the respondent and the relatively small sum involved I consider that the inconvenience of a second hearing would be disproportionate to any advantage which might ensue and I therefore proceed to make my award accordingly.

Decision

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I uphold CA-00007235-001 and award the complainant wages in respect of payments not made for public holidays in the amount of €614.66 gross and before statutory deductions.